I wrote about Jonathan Haidt here before - this guy was featured in a spate of articles around 2006, discussing the idea that liberals and conservatives based their worldviews on differing areas of a spectrum of moral principles.

These were the five foundation moral principles he was suggesting shaped peoples prediliction:

Harm/care: It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.

Fairness/reciprocity: Justice and fairness are good; people have certain rights that need to be upheld in social interactions.

In-group loyalty: People should be true to their group and be wary of threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty, and patriotism are virtues; betrayal is bad.

Authority/respect: People should respect social hierarchy; social order is necessary for human life.

Purity/sanctity: The body and certain aspects of life are sacred. Cleanliness and health, as well as their derivatives of chastity and piety, are all good. Pollution, contamination, and the associated character traits of lust and greed are all bad.

Haidt’s research reveals that liberals feel strongly about the first two dimensions—preventing harm and ensuring fairness—but often feel little, or even feel negatively about the other three. Conservatives, on the other hand, are drawn to loyalty, authority, and purity, which liberals tend to think of as backward or outdated. People on the right acknowledge the importance of harm prevention and fairness but not with quite the same energy or passion as those on the left.

Now he's got a new article, Liberals aren't Un-American, Conservatives aren't Ignorant, in which he mostly restates his arguments from 2005-2006. But, he also introduces a new website, which I have been enjoying reading, Civil Politics at www.civilpolitics.org

Here's some snippets from an excellent article I found thru civil politics:

http://www.thedinnerbook.com/conversation_td.htm

Here are twelve tips on how to disagree without being quite so disagreeable:

1. Manners are the lubricating oil of good political discussions. Never underestimate the power of a ready smile, simple courtesy and civility. Your courtesy may not be remembered or returned, but discourtesy will never be forgotten.

"When you shoot an arrow of truth, dip its point in honey."
—Arab proverb

2. Show empathy and tolerance for differences. Tolerance and empathy do not require approval or agreement—they do require a cordial and positive attempt to understand another's feelings, beliefs and positions. If you're doing all the talking, you are probably boring somebody. To lead others to your side on any issue it helps to see the road they must travel through their eyes not your own.

"When you want to convert someone to your view, you go over to where he is standing, take him by the hand (mentally speaking), and guide him. You don't stand across the room and shout at him; you don't call him a dummy; you don't order him to come over to where you are. You start where he is, and work from that position. That's the only way to get him to budge."
—Thomas Aquinas, the great persuader

3. Do your homework to build depth behind your convictions. The journey to wisdom takes you from simple truths to a deeper understanding and then back to an informed simplicity that communicates depth. Be humble and fair with your "facts." Statistics are only temporary snapshots in a stream of reality and far too many quotes are often taken out of context. There is value in doing your homework; it is quite another thing to tell people everything you know about a subject and call it dialogue.

"It is easier to be critical than to be correct."
—Benjamin Disraeli

Anyway, I've been trying to reprogram myself with some of this model for thinking. I don't really have any hope that communication can happen, but it's best to try to be conscious.